JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) :

In both the petitions a common question of law and facts and order taking cognizance are involved and that is why both these petitions are heard together with consent of the parties.

2. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.5.2012 in connection with Chandwa P.S.Case No.98 of 2010, G.R. Case No.605 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and S.D.J.M, Latehar in both the cases respectively.

3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the informant received telephonic message from SDO Latehar that rice of PDS was unloaded from truck in the godown of one Amardip Kumar unauthorizedly. It is further alleged that the informant alongwith officer in charge of Chandwa Police Station enquired jointly and during course of enquiry 3488 bags food grain were found. Thereafter search and seizure list was prepared. It is further alleged that during the course of enquiry the informant reached to Block Supply Officer where he was informed that on 3.11.2010 only four PDS shop keepers have been supplied of food grain. It is further alleged that from perusal of register it was found that 1.75 quintal in Antyodaya and 25.76 quintal rice was given to one shopkeeper Krishna Baitha through vehicle No.JH01Y-6409. Thereafter the informant reached at the shop of Krishna Baitha and in presence of shopkeeper physical verification of the shop was done and during course of enquiry several irregularity were found and the shopkeeper did not give satisfactory explanation of those irregularities. The shopkeeper also told that when the foodgrain reached at his shop neither supply officer Shreekant Pal nor nodal officer Satyendra Kumar Singh, Binod Kumar Singh, transporter came at the shop. It was further alleged that as per rule they are responsible for conveying the food grain to PDS at shop and to distribute the same amongst beneficiaries.

4. Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2562 of 2012 submits that the petitioner was Supply Officer and there is no dereliction on the part of the petitioner as alleged in this case and in absence of any departmental proceeding for any alleged offence the criminal proceeding has been lodged against the petitioner. He further submits that in the order taking cognizance there is no mention as to what are the materials under section 3 of the E.C.Act and which order is violated so far as this petitioner is concerned. The petitioner was busy in election duty of Mukhia in Chandwa Block as he was appointed as Assistant Returning Officer since 27.10.2010. He submits that the petitioner was not responsible for door step delivery of the food grain because as per the order of D.C. Latehar the Revenue officer and Panchayat sewak were appointed as nodal officer and they have been authorized to ensure the door step delivery of food grains at the shop of fair price shop dealer after receiving the same. He further submits that the case was not lodged against the nodal officer and on these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

5. Ms. Alka Kumari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1053 of 2012 submits that it is clear that on perusal of the FIR there is no violation of Control Order under the Essential Commodities Act. She submits that the petitioner has no concern with the PDS. He is neither t